The QS Subject Rankings are Complete Garbage...

...at least for anyone interested in the quality of the faculty in philosophy. They are based on a hard-to-decipher methodology, though as Jo Wolff (UCL) pointed out previously, it seems to give decisive weight to "employer" opinions. The law rankings are also very bad, though not as bad, partly because elite research universities do tend to have the best law faculties, and about the only thing that seems to explain these otherwise inexplicable rankings is that they largely track the halo effect of university name--as one would expect employes would do. (As we noted previously, that would also explain why they rank schools in fields where they don't actually have programs!)

Comments

The QS Subject Rankings are Complete Garbage...

...at least for anyone interested in the quality of the faculty in philosophy. They are based on a hard-to-decipher methodology, though as Jo Wolff (UCL) pointed out previously, it seems to give decisive weight to "employer" opinions. The law rankings are also very bad, though not as bad, partly because elite research universities do tend to have the best law faculties, and about the only thing that seems to explain these otherwise inexplicable rankings is that they largely track the halo effect of university name--as one would expect employes would do. (As we noted previously, that would also explain why they rank schools in fields where they don't actually have programs!)